home

Saturday Night Blog Fight

You gotta love a good blog fight and there's a big one tonight about torture between Alan Dershowitz and Larisa Alexandrovna on Huffington Post. Even Huffpo weighs in, at the bottom of Dershowitz's post.

Here's Larisa's post that started it all, criticizing Dershowitz's op-ed in the Wall St. Journal on waterboarding and torture.

Throw in (on Dershowitz's part) a little "ticking time bomb theory," the assertion that Nazi torture was sometimes effective, a little praise for Rudy and some bashing of the Dems, liberals and (some) blogs -- and from Larisa, some thoughts on torture, morality, Israel, the Holocaust and Jews.

The gloves are off, let's see where you weigh in. As for me, with all due respect to Professor Dershowitz, I'm with Larisa.

< Markos vs. Karl Rove in Newsweek | Late Night: Hit Me With Your Best Shot >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 02:49:36 PM EST
     that men of varying degrees of "honor" have been posing and debating such questions as far back as the dawn of recorded history.

      Ultimately, the answer to such questions are deeply personal. Some may believe the ends never justify "wrong" means. Other may believe that the "lesser evil" justification applies whenever they personally believe the "lesser evil" is slightly less wrong than the potential alternative. Others may believe the "lesser evil" argument can only be legitmately invoked when there is a consensus the lesser evil is absolutely necessary to prevent a far greater and certain to result wrong.

      Of course, if we just call anyone who disagrees with us "dihonorable" and declare ourselves correct, we can avoid all difficult stuff and pat on ourselves on the back and call it a day.
     

    The (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 04:13:07 PM EST
    prohibition on torture is absolute. You can't torture and be civilized. There's nothing "personal" or "difficult" about it: it is always wrong.

    What is wrong with people that now suddenly terrorism seems to call for a retreat from long established canons of moral behaviour? Is anyone on this blog seriously trying to argue that the challenges America now faces  to its existence are greater than those in the late 18th c when the country was founded? I know that clash of civilization rhetoric is faddishly popular now, but cooler heads ought to see through such patent nonsense. Does the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment mean anything? Do limits on executive power mean anything? Dershowitz's arguments are neither pragmatic nor convincing, but represent a colossal failure of the moral imagination.

    Elizabeth de la Vega is onto this campaign of moral obfuscation:
    when it comes to torture, the theme du jour is that we are all too simple and too stupid to understand just what is and is not prohibited. More than anything, White House officials want us to believe that the law of torture is so terribly confusing and vague that no lay person could comprehend its complexities. Hell, not even the attorneys can really sort it all out. How, then, the not-so-subtle implication would be, could anyone be held responsible for violating it?
    ----
    I find it amusing that Dershowitz, who isn't above the smear campaign himself (as against Norman Finkelstein, for example), complains about his treatment. When you turn to Nazis as your evidence for the effectiveness of torture, your empiricism is suspect, to say the least.  In the end it is the phony and contrived dilemma he poses, torture or death of innocents, that reveals the moral impoverishment of his argument.

    Dershowitz's Tortured Logic (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by john horse on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 06:05:19 PM EST
    I'm having some difficulty understanding Dershowitz's position on torture.

    He says he is morally against torture.  However, he favors establishing written rules and procedures that will permit torture.  How can you be morally against torture if you favor rules that will permit torture?

    Dershowitz uses fallacious reasoning when he says "There are some who claim that torture is a nonissue because it never works - it only produces false information."  Most opponents of torture wil readily concede that torture can produce information that is true.  The problem is that torture can also equally produce information that is false.  This is because under torture a person will often say what the torturer wants to hear which is why so many false confessions have been obtained through torture.  At best, information obtained under torture is unreliable.

    Admirably, Dershowitz does not favor "routine use of torture in interrogation of suspects or the humiliating misuse of sexual taunting that infamously occurred at Abu Ghraib."  I agree with Dershowitz that torture should not be used to "secure confessions of past crimes."  Unfortunately, for Dershowitz, this is exactly how the Bush administration has used torture.  According to Dershowitz the only time that torture can be used is to "obtain (in) real time, actionable intelligence deemed necessary to prevent an act of mass casualty terrorism."  Can anyone provide me with a single documented example where the Bush administration use of torture has obtained actionable intelligence that has prevented mass casualty terrorism?  I can't think of any and Dershowitz can't either because he doesn't provide any examples of the Bush administration doing this.  

    Dershowitz thinks that advocating the limited use of torture will make the US appear tough.  However, when I think of other governments that have used torture, such as Nazi Germany or Pinochet's Chile, the adjective that comes to mind is not "tough" but "cruel".  Why do we want to follow their example?  

    No (1.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 08:38:06 AM EST
    At best, information obtained under torture is unreliable.

    Why would you assume that information given voluntary by a prisoner is true? All information obtained through interrogation is unreliable until proven otherwise.

    No matter how obtained, the information can be vetted by cross checking answers, etc.

    Parent

    And since you already have the answers (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 08:51:13 AM EST
    it's no big deal to give someone else the moral authority to torture you by torturing them to "vett" the answers you already have.

    Of course. I'm sold. It's the perfect justification.

    Parent

    Actually (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:09:51 AM EST
    vetting answers doesn't mean that anyone is tortured. Try to think logically.

    Father (who knows Bob was out of town with his parents)- Where did you go last night?

    Son - Movies

    Father - Oh, who with??

    Son - Bob

    Father - Oh, what'd you see?

    Son- Uh, that new western

    Father (Knowing that there is no new western at the mall) - Oh, you mean the new Eastwood flic?

    Son - Uh, yes.....

    Father - You sure that was Bob you were with???

    Son - Uh....

    The above is a greatly simplified example, but that's basically it. It helps if the person is uncomfortable and tired. That's the purpose of sleep deprivation and temperature extremes because  it makes the person become confused easier.

    And that is why you are taught to never give any information besides name, rank and serial number. And that's why defense attorneys say never say anything without them being there.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:36:43 AM EST
    backpedalling that fast to try to distance yourself from your own statements while trying to justify them at the same time won't help you find anyone stupid enough to think you make sense, you don't think?

    Do you?

    Parent

    I haven't changed my position. (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 06:57:08 PM EST
    Heh! Ok - I'm sold. Time to bring back the rack. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 06:36:04 PM EST
    You've gotta love the astoundingly profound insights here. There's no more debate about this.

    It's no more mister nice guy time. ;-)

    Let's go with the best excuse so far expounded on these learned pages or anywhere else, for that matter, for torturing people. Forget about the fact that it's fun and show 'em who's boss.

    The ultimate irrefutable justification for torture is now:

    torture frequently results in obtaining information to use

    It just doesn't get any better that this:

    torture frequently results in obtaining information to use

    Heh. PowerBlind and Hinderaker ain't got nuthin' on this place.

    Gonzales and Yoo and Mukasey and Bush?? Amateurs all!

    And of course "decorum" and "civility" are always welcome too, in case anyone "failed to understand".

    And the "information" ""enhanced interrogation techniques" produces is not at all similar to what the "interrogators" wanted the "interrogatees" to say. No, no. It's real, vettable "actionable intelligence". We'll even have a list of desirerd answers to "vett" this "actionable intelligence" against.

    It's wingnut heaven.

    It just wouldn't do to just write down the desired answers and use them as "information to use".

    There would be no screams, no begging for mercy, no willingness to say anything at all to make the pain and the terror stop.

    And besides... without "enhancement" there would be no fun, and no orgasms.

    I'm sold. I have a few questions for the neocons.

    I'm going to make a list of the the desired answers.

    Maybe we can have an "enhanced" thread to discuss them?

    decon (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:10:22 AM EST
    you're missing the point, much in the way that Derschowitz does.

    It's well known that the prohibition on torture is an international peremptory norm like the prohibition on slavery, genocide, or wars of aggression.

    "The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia stated in Prosecutor v. Furundžija that there is a jus cogens for the prohibition against torture.[10] It also stated that every State is entitled "to investigate, prosecute and punish or extradite individuals accused of torture, who are present in a territory under its jurisdiction."[11] Therefore, there is universal jurisdiction over torture. The rationing for this is that "the torturer has become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."

    This is a much stronger position than AD's "normative" position would suggest. AD mistakes normative for normal early in his argument, the former is a strong ethical position, the latter is a utilitarian position with a serious defect.

    The defect is that AD's contrived hypothetical silently introduces a class of people to whom human rights ought not apply--the evil. Only in cases of serious evil-doing would AD support torture. Conveniently, terrorists define evil for AD. That his hypothetical is infected with Bush-style rhetoric ought to give a serious person pause, but you can have it your way and say it's just a mean liberal with a "sez-me" problem.

    Another problem with AD's formulation is that one's enemies can determine you to be evil as well, with to them equal legitimacy. If you're a Palestinian, then the evil is Israeli occupation and oppression: if you're an Israeli, the evil is the Palestinian bomber. Surely such an impasse is beyond futile?

     By allowing for the torture of evil-doers, AD does away with history, dialogue, and a strong opposition to torture. His decontextualized example hits the right emotional note, but is ethically tone deaf. The slippage between normal and normative allows him to promote his ethical confusion, which serves no one in the long run.

    You might want to look at this from the Columbia Law Review:
    In recently published memoranda, Justice Department lawyers have suggested that it is not in all circumstances wrong or unlawful to inflict pain in the course of interrogating terrorist suspects. Also, at least one legal scholar has suggested that the United States might institute a system of judicial torture warrants, to permit coercive interrogation in cases where it might yield information that will save lives. The shocking nature of these suggestions forces us to think afresh about the legal prohibition on torture. This Article argues that the prohibition on torture is not just one rule among others, but a legal archetype--a provision which is emblematic of our larger commitment to non-brutality in the legal system. Characterizing it as an archetype affects how we think about the implications of authorizing torture (or interrogation methods that come close to torture). It affects how we think about issues of definition in regard to torture. And it affects how we think about the absolute character of the legal and moral prohibitions on torture. On this basis, the Article concludes not only that the absolute prohibition on torture should remain in force, but also that any attempt to loosen it (either explicitly or by narrowing the definition of "torture") would deal a traumatic blow to our legal system and affect our ability to sustain the law's commitment to human dignity and nonbrutality even in areas where torture as such is not involved.

    or here:
    The Prohibition of Torture as an International Norm of jus cogens and its Implications for National and Customary Law
    by Erika de Wet

    You haven't at (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:35:31 PM EST
    all said why different personal answers would be all correct, just that they are all possible. Lots of wrong answers to 2+2=4 are possible, and all but the answer 4 are wrong.

    Torture is a fundamental assault on human dignity, both of the victim and the victimizer. Did you respond to this? NO, you didn't.

    How do you contain torture, once it's been put on the table? Did you respond to this? No, you didn't.

    What of your opponents' use of torture being enabled by your embrace of torture? Again, no response.

    Stop prattling about how everyone else isn't arguing intelligently and try to make an actual case for your own position that's persausive.

    I reject your claim that the prohibition on torture is personal, though that doesn't entail a rejection of debate on the idea. Stop whining and start arguing would be my advice.

    ok (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:11:57 PM EST
    "all said why different personal answers would be all correct, just that they are all possible. Lots of wrong answers to 2+2=4 are possible, and all but the answer 4 are wrong.
    "

      The point is that there are many situations where there  IS NO "CORRECT" ANSWER. Morality is not mathematics.  In questions of morality none of us can know more than what we believe and, less accurately, what other people believe. Obviously, people tend to believe their PERSSONAL moral beliefs are the "correct" ones or they would believe differently but the fact that people do very sincerely often have major disagreements over moral questions should help you understand that it's not 2+2=4. You should also be able to grasp that people's moral views can  evolve and change over time while "n" is a constant in 2+2=n also illustrates the profound inapt nature of your argument.

    "Torture is a fundamental assault on human dignity, both of the victim and the victimizer. Did you respond to this? NO, you didn't."

      Yes it is. However, the question remains whether any conceivable circumstance might justify a fundamental assault on the human dignity of the torturer or torturee. I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand different people answer that differently.

    "How do you contain torture, once it's been put on the table? Did you respond to this? No, you didn't. What of your opponents' use of torture being enabled by your embrace of torture? Again, no response"

      That's a practical not moral question and the answer is  and our use of torture can be expected to increase the practice of it by others. Again, the question remains are there circumstances where even believing that to be true a specific application of torture might be justified. Can you not understand that a person confronted with a real world situation might think that despite the likelihood our adversaries (or others) will be more likely to resort to torture in the future that's a cost he has to allow in order to prevent the certain mass loss of life imminently?

    "I reject your claim that the prohibition on torture is personal"

      Well, that's just indicative of your inability to understand. Maybe when you learn to understand that very simple and undeniable concept, you will be better equipped to deal with the more difficult and complex aspects of the questions.

    Parent

    your post (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:23:21 PM EST
    reads like a sophomore philosophy paper.

    Why ban torture at all if all beliefs/standards/norms/laws are simply "personal"? What a ludicrous position that is.  As for thinking I don't understand you simply because I find your argument untenable, well, you go ahead and think that.

    Parent

    It's not because (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 08:33:42 AM EST
     I think there is any point in attempting to get Edger, squeaky, Jondee, etc. to think about anything and say something intelligent, let alone persuade them to accept the possibility that their positions are not the only ones.

     I basically just use them as foils to illustrate for others the problem of allowing irrational passion to destroy the capacity to reason.

      These types of "liberals" do more damage to the cause than the most savvy right-wingers could ever hope to do.

    She is your daughter, after all. (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 08:47:09 AM EST
    Edger, would you explain your "subject" (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by jerry on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:52:25 AM EST
    That one went way past me.  Would you explain it please?

    Parent
    Never mind, I read the rest of the posts (none / 0) (#43)
    by jerry on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:59:59 AM EST
    The daughter conundrum is reasonable and a restatement of the Dukakis gaffe.

    If my wife is raped I want to go and kill the rapist, in the most horrible way possible.

    Thankfully for us all, we live in a rule of law, where my understandably vicious desires are tempered knowing that we have a system and a process.

    If torture will get my daughter back, you're damned right I'll be screaming for torture.  It doesn't mean that at other times I won't think torture is horrible and should never be used.

    Parent

    My point was that torturing (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:09:07 AM EST
    in hopes of getting your daughter back is likely to get your daughter tortured, or if not likely at the very least puts the responsibility for her torture, if she is tortured in response to you torturing, squarely and unavoidably in your lap.

    It's counting on your "enemy" having higher moral standards than you do.

    Parent

    Then again (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:16:07 AM EST
    the torture advocates repeatedly try to redefine torture downwards to claim for example that waterboarding isn't torture, so I have to conclude that they would have no problem with being responsible for their daughters being waterboarded.

    Parent
    Perhaps, but IIRC, nothing in this thread so far (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jerry on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:18:40 PM EST
    leads me to believe that Deconstructionist is a torture advocate.

    Parent
    Just the rhetorical twist and turns (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:33:34 PM EST
    to avoid opposing it, or to try redefine what he cannot avoid opposing.

    Parent
    Perhaps you can explain (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 07:03:17 PM EST
    Your position on Rove burning to death. The following was written in response to tnthorpe, a noted believer that anything done to a prisoner is torture.

    Nope. (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 05:52:00 PM CST
    Obtuse? You are defending a very nasty statement made by Repack. You have adopted it as your own when you wrote:

    "mine was that he indulged in a tart and pleasant metaphor."

    You claim that a mean look at a terrorist is torture, yet Rove burning to death is a "pleasant metaphor."

    One more time. Explain to me what is pleasant about wishing someone burns to death.



    Parent
    ROFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 07:33:31 PM EST
    you just can't be serious.

    Parent
    Trolls For Torture (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 03:01:43 PM EST
    DeCon and ppj defend torture.

    Parent
    Perhaps you can explain (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 07:20:57 PM EST
    Title goes here (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 08:46:15 AM CST...

    I look forward to Kos and Rove in a debate.  The most entertaining thing Rove could do is self-immolate on TV, with Kos handing him the Zippo. </metaphor>

    Why no one has condemned this. It seems to me that burning to death is at least as bad as torture.

    Parent

    ROFLMAO (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 07:30:55 PM EST
    Do you not see the word metaphor highlighted with brackets?

    What a piece of work you are.

    But good for a giggle, I gotta say.

    Parent

    The question is, (1.00 / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:06:06 PM EST
    why make such a terrible comment?

    How can you find that entertaining in any size, shape or portion???

    That you state that you do really raises some questions.

    Parent

    And of course after (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    careful vetting by our resident Aristotle, it's been determined beyond a shadow of a doubt that the U.S foreign policy tradition in place for the last fifty years that includes war and torture as "diplomacy by other means" is based on such sound, rational, principals that it's not worth evoking or examining in an abstract debate about torture.

    Parent
    nice "substance" there. (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:26:38 PM EST
      You asked. I answered. you fall back on "sez me" because you have no substance.

    you didn't answer (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:33:56 PM EST
    you just offered more of the same nonargument.

    But hey, you can have the last word, and I'm just delighted to know you feel more threatened by people who oppose torture under all circumstances than from terrorists and torturers. That's some serious thinking there.


    Parent

    Oh, lighten up and give decon a break, will you? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 02:01:08 PM EST
    After all he "can fully respect THINKING people who believe that no form of torture should ever be employed".

    The problem is that unless people think(?) like decon thinks(?) then they aren't thinking people, you see.

    Especially if they come to the conclusion that wanting to endlessly debate whether and under what circumstances torture might be ok is nothing more than wanting to endlessly debate whether and under what circumstances torture might be ok, iow excusing it and advocating it.

    While it continues.

    But far be it from thinking(?) people like decon to ever think(?) that following the law and putting a stop to it first, then debating it endlessly, would probably result in less of their daughters being tortured.

    A Primer on the Law of Torture    

    President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney as well as a succession of current and former attorneys general, legal counsels, secretaries of defense, judicial appointees, CIA agents and others seem to be having difficulty figuring out what constitutes torture or other cruel and inhuman treatment as a matter of law. For example, does "waterboarding" constitute torture? Perhaps they could do with a primer on the subject.

    What does the law actually say? According to the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment: "The term 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession ... inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other person acting in an official capacity ... No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." Could any statement of law be clearer?
    ...
    Is the US bound by the law? Yes. Can the US president grant immunity? No. The US government crafted, promoted, adopted, signed and ratified the 1984 Convention Against Torture, which therefore automatically becomes the "supreme law of the land," pursuant to the US Constitution, which itself forbids cruel punishment. No enabling legislation is required to give effect to these basic principles of law.
    ...
    Torture, within the meaning of the 1984 Convention Against Torture, continues to be secretly and systematically inflicted and condoned by various officials at the highest levels of the Bush administration. Most of these high-level officials have no experience of combat, of imprisonment or of interrogation. They have trashed the reputation of America around the globe. As a result, they are contributing to the rise of international terrorism. These leaders and actors appear to lack the imagination, intellectual capacity and moral compass to understand what is at stake, and keep America on the moral high ground. They need a primer on the basics. They better learn quick, because there is no statute of limitations on war crimes and crimes against humanity, and as our US president has himself said, in a not-dissimilar context, "They can run, but they can't hide."



    Parent
    It's just frustrating (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 03:33:37 PM EST
    Decon's just barking up the wrong tree here. I don't think D is evil and I don't think D supports torture as a question of policy, but D hasn't at all clarified why exemptions ought to be allowed. To say that personal opinions differ isn't a justification for anything. If you were to be called upon to torture, you would want more than some president or other to simply say, "It's all right by me," wouldn't you?
    Further, AD's example isn't the ideologically neutral bit of utilitarian calculus Decon seems to think it is: it makes AD's argument less than honest. Taking as an example an event from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as your "neutral" example is simply wrong. If preventing a suicide bombing justifies torture, does preventing an illegal settlement also do so? If so, why? If not, why? How do you stop that question from ramifying ever further? Once you declare a state of exception, you empower those who get to make that declaration and it's not at all clear how those who make that declaration can be restrained by normal political means. Read Giorgio Agamben on the state of exception and sovereignty. and here with respect to G. Bush

    What is most frustrating is that there was no debate over the moral status of torture before the Bush cabal rode roughshod over precedent with its torture memos, Gitmo, extraordinary renditions, CIA black sites, and fetish for unrestrained executive power. How far backward are we going to go as a nation from the basic principles imperfectly but clearly articulated in the Consititution?

    Parent
    how about (none / 0) (#70)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 04:20:26 PM EST
    "If preventing a suicide bombing justifies torture, does preventing an illegal settlement also do so? If so, why? If not, why?"

       The harm caused by a suicide bomber is irreparable and directly causes severe injury and death while establishing a settlement can be undone without injury or loss of life?

     

    Parent

    Decon (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 06:42:18 PM EST
    I don't think you're personally evil. But the whole torture meme is evil. For example, even in your comment here you are back to a simple ends justify means argument. Well, the ends don't justify the means, All they do is drag you down to the level of your perceived "enemies". Or lower.

    The people who are personally liable in the administration for torturing need the debate to go on endlessly to escape accountability. Furthering that helps them, and in effect, for all intents and purposes, becomes support and maybe even advocacy.

    We have only to look at Germany's experience to see how that happens.

    We've been down this road before, you and I, and I don't really expect a different response from you this time.

    But there is no more "debate" about it. "Debate" defined torture and set the bar, and resulted in the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, and various other laws. All that is left to do now is is to make the mindset and the meme socially and morally clearly unacceptable.

    As in Germany's experience, if that means marginalizing and making pariahs of torture advocates, then that is what needs to be done.

    Parent

    The question is (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 07:27:22 PM EST
     about criteria for justification of torture, but what possible standards exist to which one can turn? There is no neutral third party nor any independent process of determination.

    To Palestinians the wall and illegal settlements are strangling their livelihoods and destroying their culture just as certainly as the threats of more suicide bombers drives the wall's construction  and the expansion of illegal settlements by the Israelis. To each the other can be caricatured as evil, and they have both done horrible things to each other. Adding torture to the mix does nothing to alleviate the conflict, but rather increases it. AD's example omits this background, which is why it is  dishonest.

    But the point of the illustration is that what's permitted on one side is then also pursued by the other, with the serious consequence that criteria for the justification of torture become fluid, since, as you have frequently noted, everyone has a personal idea of what justifies torture. Even with the best of intentions, if you pave a road with torture, it leads one place. This is one reason why the prohibition must be absolute in our imperfect world.

    Parent

    Actually what I said was: (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:52:53 PM EST
    It's when people incapable of thinking simply resort to "I'm right and anyone who disagress with me is evil" rationale that we have problems. In fact, there is a significant number of people here who go further than that and adopt the argument that people who merely suggest it is possible to disagree with them are evil and should be slienced. Frankly, that mindset is probably a greater threat to our future than either today's  terrorists or torturers.

      Those peope could be torture opponents or torture advocates or for or or agianst any particular policy. It's the intolerant, simple and narrow-minded authoritarian impulse that frightens me,  not the policy postions.

    Intolerance of torture frightens you? (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 02:04:14 PM EST
    What have you done?

    Parent
    Never mind that no one (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    here as ever, to my knowledge, literally called a debate opponent evil or declared unequivicably that they had no right to speak..Decon's lucid, perfectly rational characterization of those he has strived to bring enlightment to needs no further clarification..

    As to those who might say that the "mindset" he discribes may be more fully realized in the "lesser threat" torturers and terrorists -- one must remember that self-anointed light bringers are allowed a little poetic lisence.

    Parent

    Semi-related: Alan Dershowitz and the left.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by jerry on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 12:01:57 PM EST
    Something I dislike about the human organism is how much we have to make things black and white.  Supposedly, we on the left are all about the nuance, but Dershowitz' views on torture show that isn't so.

    And I'm not talking about Dershowitz' views on torture itself.  People can disagree with Dershowitz and think he is stupid, blind, and immoral, but at least he is being intellectually honest and writing down what he feels and thinks.  I'm talking more about how we on the left have swung from supporting his defenses to vilifying the guy.

    On liberal blog after liberal blog it becomes clear that Dershowitz is a scum that seeks only to enrichen himself and has always been that way.  Well known liberal bloggers or almost equally well known commenters point out how craven and self-enriching is defense of OJ was.  And how his defense of Von Bulow was not about how everyone deserves a defense or about how defending the rich allows him to defend the poor, but was only about making Dershowitz well known.

    But, what really annoys me, is not just how we on the left can decide who does and does not deserve a good defense, but also who does and does not deserve free speech.

    I've been reading Wendy Kaminer, of the ACLU, as she writes how the ACLU is becoming politically correct in who they defend.   And following the activities of an organization she takes part in known as FIRE.  Recently FIRE took the University of Delaware to task for their implementation of their diversity program, and I think they had excellent reasons for doing so.  According to Technorati, FIRE's activities were covered by about 80 right wing blogs (including Hot Air) and by not a single major left wing blog.  (Only covered by one left wing blog which criticized FIRE, IIRC.)  Gag!  We just gave up the First Amendment to the Right Wing!  And we gave them an excellent stick to pummel us with.

    I think we're about to do it again in the UK Libel case against Rachel Ehrenfeld.  Technorati is crap, but near as I can tell, this case, which pits English Libel law vs. the US First Amendment regarding an account published in the US being fought in England has been discussed on all sorts of conservative blogs, and nowhere in the liberal blogosphere.

    Difficulty: Rachel Ehrenfeld has some association with the American Enterprise Institute and support from the NRO, HotAir, and PJM.

    Will Ehrenfeld's conservative ties in the US prevent us on the left from speaking out in defense of her?

    Is the friend of our "enemies" our enemy?

    Recognition and Defense of our Civil Liberties should not be treated in this manner.

    I apologize if this is offtopic.  I don't agree with Dershowitz on torture, but I very much respect his argument.

    With all due respect... (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 02:38:46 PM EST
    ...Dershowitz has become a cartoon.  No one is trying to censor him.  Give me a break.  When he speaks bullsh*t, it's to be called such.  As for right wingers trying to halt diversity programs, give me another break.  There is a long history in this nation of discrimination and exclusion.  The right would seek to address that by ignoring it -- and hence doing nothing.

    Dersh can say whatever he wants, but when he slings garbage, he can expect to have it hurled back at him.

    Parent

    I like both Dershowitz and Alexandrova but here... (none / 0) (#2)
    by jerry on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 12:14:39 PM EST
    I think Dershowitz was pretty much correct to say that Alexandrova spun his factual defense as an endorsement that he was not making.

    And we do see on blog after blog (Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias) that torture just does not work, which has raised the question of what these bloggers would say, if torture did in fact work.

    I think Alexadrovna is absolutely wrong to claim the moral position must somehow be to not mention that torture could conceivably work.

    Klein, Yglesias (and I) are all Jews.  I think the strongest position (that no one is taking?) is that even if torture does work, we don't torture.  Almost all of these bloggers have said in the past that in the improbably ticking nuclear bomb case, yes, we would torture and then expect the President to issue a pardon and then gone on to say how improbable that is to occur and how we should not base our day to day policy on the improbably event.

    Near as I can see, Dershowitz is being intellectually honest and saying, we're torturing in the day to day (as at Gitmo), so let's get some court oversight.

    I think the weak position is to construe a discussion of torture's efficacy as an endorsement of torture and thus say this is an opinion we must not discuss.

    (And I like them both and look forward to Alexandrovna's reports on Thom Hartmann.)

    I think Larisa Does Make That Point (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 12:24:13 PM EST
    Jerry, Thanks for your thoughtful comments on this. You say (and I agree that it is the strongest postition):

    I think the strongest position (that no one is taking?) is that even if torture does work, we don't torture.

    In her reply to Dershowitz, linked above, Larisa says:

    The question is simple: is torture moral or immoral? There is no room in this discussion for its viability as a weapon of information gathering. The question is not "does it work," because even if it does work, it is still immoral. It may work and it may not work, but it does not change the basic moral question.


    Parent
    My understanding of Larissa's comment (none / 0) (#4)
    by jerry on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    was that yes, it would still be immoral, and I agree.

    But if it was effective, some people do argue that ends justifies the means and the morality doesn't matter.

    Anyway, thank you for your thanks.  As I said, what I really find interesting and disappointing about this, is the apparent need on the left blogosphere to characterize with a naive, simplistic, thumb's up/thumb's down on the entire life and morality of various individuals.  (And of course, I am not saying you fall into that at all, I am sure you have read how you are not really a feminist, because you are a defense lawyer and was arguing in support of the Duke students from way back.  That's the stuff that really pisses me off.)

    Oh well.  Enjoy your Sunday -- I need to go pick my kids up.

    Parent

    Jerry sums it up well. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 12:48:40 PM EST
      I'll just add:

      Torture is wrong. Torture frequently works for its intended purpose.

      This is no different than stating:

     Stealing is wrong. Stealing frequently works for its intended purpose.

      However, despite stealing being wrong, is it always more wrong than not stealing? Would you steal vital medicine to save your child's life if you had no other way of obtaining it? Is there any room for reasonable disagreement about that?

      Is an analogous argument about torture not permissible? Is it helpful to assert such things cannot even be discussed?

     

    If there weren't such a seeming (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 01:24:16 PM EST
    shortage of HONORABLE men making that argument, it might be able have more unbiased hearing.

    Dershowitz publicly stated not long ago that one of the factors contributing the excess of Palestinian casualties on the West Bank was the Arab tradition of firing guns in air at weddings.

    Parent

    Another question worth asking: (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 02:34:13 PM EST
    Is the torture an ongoing feature of deeply flawed policy that assures retaliatory "ticking bombs" which assure the need for more torture in order (ostensibly) to "save lives"?

    Parent
    Can you define what you would (1.00 / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 03:18:08 PM EST
    be willing to give up to have peace with the terrorists??

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 05:44:24 PM EST
    I prefer to keep ALL my Bill of Rights freedoms, and I'll take my chances with terrorists.

    When did Americans become such cowards that they would surrender hard-won freedom, paid for with the blood of patriots, because there are terrorists in the world?

    Why does George W. Bush attempt to advance the cause of terrorism by telling us that to worry about it so much that we should give up the freedom that the terrorists apparently hate us for?  Shouldn't we answer the freedom hating terrorists and Republicans with MORE freedom rather than less?

    Parent

    Let's assume that Iran develops a nuke. And based (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 08:25:17 AM EST
    on what we see that is most likely.

    And based on what Dinnerjacket says, we can expect to be attacked.

    MAD doesn't work when someone like Dinnerjacket is on the other side.

    So we have Dinnerjacket saying, "Hey all you unbelievers, I have a nuke in NYC. Let's talk."

    So what would you be willing to give up?? What if all he wants is Shari Law to be instituted?? Would you say, "Take your best shot," and then launch our nukes against Iran??

    Or would you say, "Okay, I'll take my chances."

    Not very simple is it??

    Parent

    Let's assume (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 09:32:42 AM EST
    that you had presented a rational argument instead of word salad and hypothetical nonsense.

    No, let's not.

    Just so we're clear, which of your Bill of Rights freedoms would you exchange, and what would you want in return?

    Is the illusion of safety all you want in exchange for your freedom?

    Parent

    You first (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 09:53:46 AM EST
    He already went first. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:14:22 AM EST
    I have observed this before about Conservatives and their allies-

    Patrick Henry said, "give me liberty or give me death"

    Conservatives and their allies seem to be responding that "this liberty business is overrated".  


    Parent

    Why do you make things up?? (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:35:32 PM EST
    I mean when the evidence is right there for all to see??

    I wrote at:

     

    Let's assume that Iran develops a nuke. And based (1.00 / 2) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 07:25:17 AM CST

    So what would you be willing to give up?? What if all he wants is Shari Law to be instituted?? Would you say, "Take your best shot," and then launch our nukes against Iran??

    Then the following transpired:

    by Repack Rider on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 08:32:42 AM CST
    that you had presented a rational argument instead of word salad and hypothetical nonsense.

    No, let's not.

    Just so we're clear, which of your Bill of Rights freedoms would you exchange, and what would you want in return?

    Is the illusion of safety all you want in exchange for your freedom?

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]

        You first (1.00 / 2) (#30)
        by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 08:53:46 AM CST



    Parent
    Evidence (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 02:41:44 PM EST
    That tortue frequently works for its intended purposes.  The Israelis use it and they are no safer or more secure.  Theft is a spurious comparison, since when you steal you get an immediate consumable product to use.

    Parent
    Neither you or I have any way of (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 03:16:02 PM EST
    and they are no safer or more secure

    knowing if that is true.

    Parent

    Typically, (none / 0) (#13)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 03:31:00 PM EST
     you fail to understand.

     As with stealing frequently resulting in  obtaining property,  torture frequently results in obtaining information to use. That often the long-term direct or indirect use of the information obtained does not "solve" all of the prolems somehow associated  with the desire for that information is no different than acquiring peoperty by stealing not solving all the problems associated with the desire for that property.

      Moreover, the argument that often the consequential damages that arise from using torture may prove to outweigh the value of the information obtained is equally applicable to obtaining property by stealing.

      None of that changes the fact that in many cases torture will obtain information that does help address some immediate concern just as stealing will sometimes obtain property useful to address some immediate need or desire.

      Until, you stop to thinnk about things you are unlikely to add much of relevance to any derious discuusion.

    Parent

    Typically you cant (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 04:30:02 PM EST
    distinguish between non-aquiessence in giving priority to yet another restatment of an elementary point about "the lesser of two evils" and failure to understand.

    If only people understood you, they'd never need to think for themselves. Or is there more to it than that?

    And, not that you shouldnt be the final arbiter of relevant discourse here (you and your esteemed client), but I think I'll continue to engage here on occasion in the hopes of catching some refracted light from your profound musings.

    Parent

    Analogy (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by syinco on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 09:24:37 AM EST
    What I like about the analogy is that I think it helps demonstrate that there is no clear need to establish whether there are or should be legal or moral exceptions to the statement that torture/stealing is wrong/illegal.  

    If someone chooses to steal, even in such circumstances, then they may well face the legal consequences. Perhaps there is a 'necessity' or 'lesser of two evils' defense. Perhaps charges are not pursued given the circumstances. Perhaps a jury refuses to convict. Perhaps the parent must accept the punishment as levied; that seems unfair, but a small price to pay if indeed the circumstances had been so dire.

    Nor is it clear that the circumstances make the parent's actions morally right. Morally defensible, yes, but that can be debated afterwards. I don't see the need to determine beforehand when there might be an exception to the rule; in fact, doing so removes what I think is an important check and balance to help ensure that the circumstances really are exceptional.

    If someone tortures, it's a reasonable position that they should be held accountable, both morally and legally. If someone is willing to torture or authorize torture, why not require that that person place him/herself at personal risk? After all, we are talking about situations so rare, so exceptional, so dire - that it would be a relatively small price to pay, right?

    I'm not saying that this position is without practical problems. But I think it is an interesting and appealing perspective.

    Torture is wrong, period. Can we conceive of scenarios where to torture may arguably be less wrong than not? Sure. Is that contrary to the premise? I don't think so. Do these hypotheticals reveal fatal flaws in our consideration of torture?

    No - hard cases make bad law.

    Parent

    YOU (none / 0) (#31)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:07:28 AM EST
      are thinking and giving consideration to the countervailing and conflicting interests at stake.

      Having done so, you reach a personal opinion that is valid and defensible. That's entirely different than attempts to argue there are not conflicting interests involved or that any interests that conflict with the ones used to prohibit torture cannot be raised.

      I think my example (and the one Bill Clinton presents as described in Dershowitz's column) illuminate the reality that sometimes there is NO COURSE OF ACTION available that does not involve morally questionable decisions.

      In the example of th Clinton's "ticking bomb," there will be people who personally believe it would be less moral to allow the death of many than to adhere to a legal prohibition on torture. Others will argue that even the death of many cannot justify the calculated use of violence against a human being.

      Obviously, simply given the fact people do disagree, one's view is deeply personal. Equally obviously, no government actor can ever make a decision in accordance with everyone's personal view.

      I differ from you though in the suggestion I believe you make (I may be mistaken about your view) that if the government actor contemplating torture is ultimately  held personally accountable for his decision we have "solved" the problem. You use the phrase that his personal assumption of risk of punishment is a "small price to pay" if he believes he is right.

      The problem is that, again, different people will have very different views. Some might resort to extreme methods of torture in some circumstances even believing his later execution will certainly result. Others might refrain from less severe methods of torture where it is shown to have been the only recourse to prevent mass destruction for fear of far lesser sanctions.

      That is one reason  why we do need established guidelines to control and even override individual connscience. Another is that as Clinton pointed out, the risk of personal punishment is more likely to drive people to conceal and lie about their actions. Ultimately, the decision will be a personal one but if any form of torture is ever to be considered justified   it needs to be made  within the framework of extraordinary controls where it has been shown that the person authorizing it has highly compelling reason to believe it is necessary and the only method of preventing imminent harm of a great magnitude.

      Of course, even then you still have the issue of what imminent harm of great magnitude means to different people.

      The thing that worries me is that there are people who would actually deny how difficult these issues could be in the real world and suggest they have the only morally defensible position on the matter.

     

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#42)
    by syinco on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:58:45 AM EST
    weren't mistaken about the view I proposed; though while you read it correctly, I hadn't reconciled myself to it knowing that it was far from perfect. Thus my interest in your response ...  

    As for the problem of different people responding differently when faced with the crucial decision of whether to torture:

    "Some might resort to extreme methods of torture in some circumstances even believing his later execution will certainly result."

    Permitting torture certainly doesn't resolve this concern; if anything, it exacerbates it.

    "Others might refrain from less severe methods of torture where it is shown to have been the only recourse to prevent mass destruction for fear of far lesser sanctions."

    Is this a problem? It seems to be only if you assume that there is an objectively right response, which is what you seem to be trying to suggest/prove through this statement.

    Personally, I do think it's a problem, but perhaps it's mitigated given that practically, there may be more than one person involved who could recognize that the circumstances are so weighted in one direction, that he/she intervenes and takes responsiblity for the agonizing decision.

    As for Clinton's concern that personal risk is likely to encourage cover-ups, I do agree that's a serious problem.  

    Is it any worse than the problem that allowing exceptions paves the way for abuse of those exceptions? Hard to say.

    That ambiguity is one reason I do not agree with the suggestion that we need to provide a mechanism, no matter how carefully constructed, to govern when torture is permissible. However, you've given good food for thought ...

    Parent

    I do not (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:48:02 PM EST
     assume there is an "objectively right" response in any scenario. that's basically been my primary point all along that there is not and cannot be an "objectively right" response in any sscenario.

      I'll even go further and state I don't think there can be an "objectively wrong" response in any scenario because even  the decision to torture a person when there is no reason to believe he even has important information about a past wrong  is merely "subjectively wrong" no matter if that subjective view is universally held by everyone other than the tortuere (or even including the torturer).

      Laws, norms, moral proscriptions or whatever you want call them are ALL subjective. Even a  law that every single being living or dead in recorded history believed was the one and true "right" law is necessaril a subjective concept.

      I can fully respect THINKING people who believe that no form of torture should ever be employed. Certainly, both the "slippery-slope" and "tit for tat" arguments havegreat force, as does the subjective belief that it is never right to intentionally harm another human being.  I can also respect people who believe that torture should be utilized in certain extreme and rare situations and that the proscription against harming another human being should give way where that human being refuses to disclose information that would result in great harm. Those are all PERSONAL and SUBJECTIVE beliefs which can be supported.

      It's when people incapable of thinking simply resort to "I'm right and anyone who disagress with me is evil" rationale that we have problems. In fact, there is a significant number of people here who go further than that and adopt the argument that people who merely suggest it is possible to disagree with them are evil and should be slienced. Frankly, that mindset is probably a greater threat to our future than either today's  terrorists or torturers.

      That it is espoused by people who keep stressing their supposed love for  "freedom" and liberty" makes it no less dangerous.

     

    Parent

    Torture opponents (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:03:58 PM EST
    are a greater danger than torturers and torture advocates?

    Of course they are... how could any thinking person think otherwise.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by syinco on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:30:26 PM EST
    you don't assume that. I just don't think that your position ("we need established guidelines ...") logically follows in part or whole from that specific scenario - unless you were to assume there was an "objective right". (Though I'm not sure that you thought that it did follow.)

    Just because you and I or someone else may agree or differ on how someone should act in a particularly difficult circumstance doesn't necessarily help demonstrate that we need rules dictating how one should act. That's why that part of your earlier response didn't carry any weight with me.

    Minor point, said mostly to clarify that I agree on the objective/subjective aspects ...

    And I'm in agreement with the rest of your response.  

    Parent

    My position (none / 0) (#60)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:44:52 PM EST
      is IF we adopt the position that torture is justified in certain situations, we need guidelines first very tightly limiting those situations and also establishing very thorough procedures for regulating its use and documenting all the circumstances.

       That's not to aid in proving or disproving whether the decision to torture was "objectively correct" but to allow for post hoc subjective consideration of the decision.

      I have not advocated allowing the use of torture in any circumstance. I've just attempted to point out the complexities of the issue.

      Personally, in the abstract, I do believe there are situations where the employment of torture could be justified. However, I currently don't trust the people who would have to make decision enough  to favor allowing it and I'm not exactly hopeful that any more trustworthy people will be in such positions during my lifetime.

     

    Parent

    Geez after all that (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 03:33:35 PM EST
    I discover that Decon and I ultimatly concur. That is, if it's possible for the uninitiated to comprehend fully all of the masters many levels of meaning.

    I must admit though, to a feeling of, (dare-I-say), enlightenment? A peace that passeth-all-understanding? Definatly a sense of serenity.

    Thank you, Decon.

    Parent

    You're right. (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 08:07:31 AM EST
    But because "torture doesn't provide useful information" is a touchstone of the Left you are not allowed to say that it can, and has.

    They then claim that every interrogation technique is torture.

    Therefore all interrogation is useless.

    Therefore anyone who interrogates is, as Molly B loves to write about me, "depraved," etc.


    Parent

    Physical abuse of prisoners is morally wrong (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:24:51 AM EST
    It is morally depraved. Whether or not it works. Is that clear enough?

    Defining deviancy down so as to claim some "enhanced interrogation techniques" are not really torture, is semantics and also morally depraved.

    It is a slippery slope. Where does it end?

    I, again, note that General George Washington demanded his troops not abuse prisoners. That is part of our American tradition and values.

    Given that we agree that torture is morally wrong, as likely to produce bad information as good information,  and we agree that torture is by definition physical abuse, the only question is why do some advocate physical abuse?  I postulate a depraved heart and I am intentionally borrowing the term from laws regarding homicide.

    Parent

    I'm not advocating torture. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 06:56:01 AM EST
      I'm stating that being opposed to torture, while a very valid position,  does not put one in a position where he can end all discussion by saying "I'm right and I don't have to defend my position because anyone who disagrees is dishonorable (or worse).

      If you believe  torture under any circumstances for any reason is wrong then you should be able to make the case with sensible arguments. Saying silly things such as personal views are not personal or that there can never be a difficult call where torture is one of the possible options is not sensible argument. It's  simple-minded "sez me" shouting.

      One can acknowledge both the utility of torture as a means of obtaining information and admit that at times the information so obtained  might be used to prevent some terrible outcome without surrendering the opposition to torture. It's feebly attempting to deny those realities in order to support opposition to torture  that is both dishonest and counter-productive.

      It's also not a matter of "defining" torture. One can agree that a method of obtaining information is "torture" but still make arguments for its employment in certain cases.

      I'll make it easy for you. finish this thought:

      Even if my infant daughter was being held hostage by violent men, I would oppose the use of any form of torture to coerce a compatriot of the captors into disclosing information that could be used to safely rescue her because ____ .

    I told you. You've converted me (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 08:10:24 AM EST
    Yo can quit trying to sell me now. I know it'll be torture for you, but I'm on your side now. I'm with you all the way on this one. I'll back you 100% decoy... sorry, I mean decon.

    You've converted me and we need to bring back the rack to get these neocons in line. It won't be torture because it will depend on whose doing it, of course. Rudy thought he had a special dispensation, but that was nothing compared to your irrefutable logic here, big d.

    You can "not" advocate torture all day long, while  you can agree that a method of obtaining information is "torture" but still make arguments for its employment in certain cases.

    Heh! One more time!

    You can "not" advocate torture all day long, while  you can agree that a method of obtaining information is "torture" but still make arguments for its employment in certain cases.

    I think you've finally found the perfect words here in this thread. I wonder why Yoo never thought of this one.

    Such blinding intellectual and moral clarity!

    This last bit should be a piece of cake for you Decon:

    I'll make it easy for you. finish this thought:

      Even if my infant daughter was being held hostage by violent men, I would oppose the use of any form of torture to coerce a compatriot of the captors into disclosing information that could be used to safely rescue her because __ .

    Well, decon? Since I know that you love her, If you don't mind giving your infant daughters captors reasons and motivation to treat her the way you treat their compatriot... who I am to argue or advocate fu*king with karma or the golden rule?

    Do unto others... and so forth.

    Parent

    Decon, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by syinco on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 08:19:58 AM EST
    sometimes I don't know why you bother ... (but I'm glad you do)

    Parent
    Actually, (none / 0) (#36)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:27:56 AM EST
      its well known that peremptory norms (jus cogens) are a theoretical construct and "international law" itself basically just aspirational declarations of negotiated principles.

      Stating that actions in abrogation of generally international  accepted norms of conduct are prohibted is demonstrably ineffectual in the real world. All the treaties and conventions in history have not and never will prevent people and governments from doing bad things that are generally accepted as prohibited without exception.

      More simply, you fail to recognize that situations can arise where one prohibited act might be the only means to prevent another prohibited act. As we are discussing "torture" and "terrorism" the failure to acknowledge that is strange.

       Someone or some body will always have to decide when prevention of one wrong requires employment of another wrong and let's facr it "international law" that states both therrorism and torture are always prohibited assists little in that decision-,aking process.

     

    you might (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:35:30 AM EST
    be right until Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Bush are tried in court. Law is developing in this regard and any sort of loosening of the prohibition on torture is on the wrong side of history.

    But you haven't responded substantively to the post, instead you've reiterated a "fight fire with fire" or an "ends justify the means" position, which I do not at all find compelling.

    Parent

    What specific point that (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:43:01 AM EST
     you raised have I failed to address. I'll try if you clarify.

      I'm not asking you to find the arguments in my posts compelling. I'm asking you to understand that mere fact you personally don't find them compelling does not mean anything beyond that and does not make the arguments you favor any more compelling.

      As I have repeatedly said, views are personal precisely because different persons have different ones.

      I'm still waiting for somoene to answer my "because" question.

    Parent

    I don't see (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:52:05 AM EST
    the prohibition on torture as being in any way personal, though certainly reasonable people can argue over what is and isn't torture. This oughtn't imply that any dispute is reasonable, however, and much of what has happened under Bush (Yoo's defining torture down, etc.) isn't at all legitimate.

    The prohibition on torture is no more personal that 2+2=4. There might be times when balancing a check book that we wished the answer were 5 or 5,000,000, but it just isn't so.

    Premising the permissibility of torture on your opponent's being evil, which is what AD's example does, makes "evil" an absolute and  eliminates the prohibition on torture by introducing a class of person that doesn't enjoy normal human rights. Who determines if who is evil? Bush, Bin Laden, the UN? The clarity of AD's example is illusory, since one can imagine one's opponents contstructing similar scenarios. Once the possibility of torture is admitted, then there is no containing it. Instead of turning to a theological concept about which there is no real certainty, I prefer real world standards.

    Torture is prohibited because it assaults human dignity, both that of the victim and that of the victimizer. It's brutality is fundamentally lawless, so is it any surprise it's a staple of authoritarian regimes? Like slavery, genocide, or wars of aggression it has no place in a civilized world order. Is it any surprise that under the Bush administration's war of aggression in Iraq and their fantasy of a GWOT (Podhoretz's WWIV) that here now in America we're having a manufactured controversy over something as fundamental as the prohibition on torture?

    Parent

    How calm and rational (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 07:06:25 PM EST
    you are when speaking about torture... yet when the subject is Rove burning, you have no problem:

     

    Nope. (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 05:52:00 PM CST
    Obtuse? You are defending a very nasty statement made by Repack. You have adopted it as your own when you wrote:

    "mine was that he indulged in a tart and pleasant metaphor."

    You claim that a mean look at a terrorist is torture, yet Rove burning to death is a "pleasant metaphor."

    One more time. Explain to me what is pleasant about wishing someone burns to death.

    Your turn.

    Parent

    you're (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 07:36:54 PM EST
    nothing if not both wrong and repetitive.

    ROFLMAO

    I've explained this to you already. You refuse to read, that's your problem.

    Parent

    His Head Is Exploding (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:37:00 PM EST
    At the thought of liar Rove's pants on fire. Between the two of them we can have barbecued brains, metaphorically speaking that is.  

    Parent
    How many barbecued brains (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:40:21 PM EST
    can fit on the head of a pin? Metaphorically speaking. ;-)

    Parent
    tehehe tnthorpe, edger and squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 08:34:29 PM EST
    You guys have been caught in something called a "double standard." Get yourself some ketchup and salt because you are going to have it for dinner a few times..

    As well as being for Rover burning and claiming to be against torture, we have this from tnthorpe:

    To Palestinians the wall and illegal settlements are strangling their livelihoods and destroying their culture

    So it is bad for illegal aliens who just happen to be Jews and move into Palestine.... but it is OK for illegal aliens to move into the US..

    Care to defend that one??

    I think that will make a great desert for your dinner...

    Parent

    Oh, I have read your excuse (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:07:52 PM EST
    but the fact is it suggests something terrible being done to Rove...

    Why do you find that entertaining??

    I again suggest you seek counseling for your obvious pent up anger and hostility.

    Parent

    another bozo post (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:44:37 PM EST
    stop wasting pixels with your idiocy.

    Parent
    it's ppj's (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:15:48 PM EST
    bonfire of the inanities

    Parent
    Hahahahaha! :-) (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:21:54 PM EST
    Well put!

    Parent
    He's self-immolating. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:22:47 PM EST
    No zippo required.

    Parent
    Hey!!! (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:31:30 AM EST
    You are not allowed to insult the Gods of the Right.

    (say it in a low rumbling menacing tone, like Lt. Worf)

    Parent

    Dershowitz (none / 0) (#47)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:01:01 PM EST
     did NOT premise the acceptability of torture on the "torturee" being evil. He premised it on the "torturee" having knowledge that if disclosed in a timely fashion could be used to prevent a great tragedy.

      Even in that scenario, there are not easy answers to the moral questions. That you cannot understand that different people will come up with different PERSONAL answers to those questions or that even the same person might come up with different PERSONAL answers in different scenarios, I cannot help you beyond suggesting you try to become a little less self-absorbed and self-referential.

    Your (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:06:00 PM EST
    moral relativity fails to impress. There is an easy answer to torture, don't.

    As for self-obsession, you haven't again responded substantively to my argument, preferring instead to continue to prattle about how everything is PERSONAL.

    Good grief, get over your PERSONAL self.

    Parent

    I asked (none / 0) (#49)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:11:43 PM EST
    you quite nicely to clarify what "substantive argument" you mean and said I'll try to respond. you have declined to do so.

      I understand that YOUR PERSONAL answer to the questions surrounding torure is never torture. I merely point out that the entire rest of the world is not required to to adopt your personal answer and people can and do have different PERSONAL answers. That you seem to believe you can end a debate by stating your view and declaring it the only legitimate one, ends it only in your mind  is the point you just don't seem to grasp.

    Just what the country needs: (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 03:05:54 PM EST
    Yet another prolix pettifog concealing stale, status-quo serving banalities in a thicket of verbiage (Send lawyers, guns and money, Dad!)

    Parent